One more point. So much for "the only reason I carry a .45 is because they don't make a .46" argument. The last time I started a shooting thread was when someone local KILLED the bad guy with a Keltec P32 mouse gun.

Am I allowed to make three posts in a row? (it must be the Southern Comfort talking - just got off a 12 hour night shift) I'm reading his thread now and he points out that he should have had his gun on him and he is glad that he had one in the chamber. Both very good points.

Usually your posts are well thought out and make a cogent point about the topic at hand.

This is unusual for you. Are you feeling ok?

It was half a flippant comment (bad y8s) and half curiosity where the "line" is drawn for public discharge of a firearm (bad wording).

I dont read gun laws (as I generally don't oppose gun ownership and have no real knowledgable input to give regarding legislation) so I tend not to be familiar with general gun etiquette, practicality, and legality of use.

I was not thinking of it as "defense" so much as "temporal proximity to the crime" that provided justification. And then I realized "oh right, the perp was holding a deadly weapon in a threatening manner" and I understood.

It was a brain fart.

In any case, I totally understand that, even under the most legitimate circumstances, if you discharge your weapon at another human being, you are essentially on the hook for a lot of potential legal consequences. The trade off is that your intention is to preserve your own life.

I've posted this many times on here, but it is the Texas Castle Doctrine, which give you a pretty black and white picture of when you can and cannot use a licensed personal firearm against an attacker.

I just got back from a course on Monday called MAG-40 taught by Massad Ayoob.

Class is titled something like "Armed Citizens' Rules of Engagement." I don't have my notes handy, but to answer Y8's, the three things required to justify use of lethal force are:

Ability - does the person have the physical ability to cause you death or grave bodily injury. This means are they armed OR there is a disparity of force. Examples of disparity of force include number of attackers, physical size difference, disability vs able bodied, man vs woman, etc. Another indicator of ability can be verbalized or demonstrated extraordinary ability. (such as black belt in marial arts...)

Opportunity - Does the person have the opportunity to cause you grave bodily injury or death RIGHT NOW. Based on the ability above, are they within range to immediately employ lethal force? Are they within range? A able bodied person threatened by a mob 100 yards away doesn't have much justification to shoot, but a person in a wheelchair might because they don't have the ability to remove themselves from danger. In regards to impact and edged weapons, look up Dennis Tueller and the tueller drill.

Jeopardy - Does/did the person who has the ability and opportunity to cause you death and grave bodily injury make statements or threatening jestures that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were in danger of immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury.

Without all three of these you are likely not justified in pulling the trigger.

I HIGHLY recommend the MAG-40 or MAG-20 classroom if you can swing it. I feel it was worth every penny.

I've posted this many times on here, but it is the Texas Castle Doctrine, which give you a pretty black and white picture of when you can and cannot use a licensed personal firearm against an attacker.

thanks .. did a quick read. interesting parts in there about provocation. does that mean to imply that you can't say "hey ******, come break into my house and show me what you got" and then apply lethal force?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiburbian

I just got back from a course on Monday called MAG-40 taught by Massad Ayoob.

Class is titled something like "Armed Citizens' Rules of Engagement." I don't have my notes handy, but to answer Y8's, the three things required to justify use of lethal force are:

That seems pretty clear. thanks for the summary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gearhead_318

This
(Pointing out obvious irony, not agreeing with)

haha and this is why i'm ok with gun ownership. and why i roll my eyes when all those republican candidates sign that pro life presidential leadership pledge.

It isn't that simple, if you are in fear for your life, you have the right to defend yourself.

Oh sweetheart, you don't know ****. "Being in fear of one's life" is tricky **** in Florida. You might get away from criminal charges, but most likely you'll have a civil claim in your hands and thanks to the "411 pain" mentality of these ***** you may end up having to spare some dough for a doing the right thing.

I would add that it is really stupid to post about a shooting. If I take a large dump, buy a laptop, try a new beer, or fabricate something with my MIG welder you can expect a post from me. If I ever have to discharge a firearm you can forget about hearing from me for quite a while. Talk to no one except your lawyer if this ever happens to you. Do not cooperate with the cops (you know what I mean). I believe cops are good people who are here to contribute to the common good but you can kiss your life good bye if you say the wrong thing under stress.

I could not agree more. I would go one step further and have the business card of a criminal defense attorney in your wallet and the phone number of a defense attorney who specializes in self defense and/or 2nd Amendment cases programmed in to your phone.

If the only assailant had been the crackhead that was immobilized, it might have have been most prudent to stay on scene and be the first to call 9-1-1, explaining that you had just discharged your firearm in defense of your life.

However, since only one of the assailants was put down and the other apparently left unharmed, it made sense for the victim to vacate the area and then make the call.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffon01

Oh sweetheart, you don't know ****. "Being in fear of one's life" is tricky **** in Florida. You might get away from criminal charges, but most likely you'll have a civil claim in your hands and thanks to the "411 pain" mentality of these ***** you may end up having to spare some dough for a doing the right thing.

Can you expound on this? Specifically, can you cite the basic - not necessarily the specific - instances in which use of lethal force in Florida is generally considered warranted?

Or, can you cite a case in which someone who used lethal force either on their own property or while holding a legitimate CCP to defend their life or the life of another was successfully sued in civil court?

Just one week ago on Sunday, June 19th, we were reminded once again that our God given right to life, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, is meaningless without the right to self-defense. That day, Father’s Day, a terrible tragedy took place in a Medford, New York pharmacy when an armed robber shot and murdered four innocent people.

Imagine yourself in that pharmacy. You are facing an obvious threat from a man with a gun. You cannot retreat because the gunman is too close. You have no weapon, because the State of New York has made it extremely difficult to posses any sort of a weapon, and certainly not a gun. Hence, your only means of self-defense is to plead for compassion from a soulless thug. At that point, with your right to life materially impaired by the government restricting your right to self-defense, you simply die.

Gun law advocates are undoubtedly ready to demand more control of firearms, and argue that citizens should rely on the police. They are missing the point. Had those innocent victims in the Medford Pharmacy managed to call the police and had the police responded within minutes, all four would still have been killed because the robber acted within seconds. The painful meaning of the phrase, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away” was all too clear on June 19th.

For decades the National Rifle Association, gun rights advocates in general and especially hunters have worked hard to prevent gun laws from becoming too restrictive. Their argument is the Second Amendment and its words proclaiming, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” For all their fine work, these groups are also missing the point. Guns, knives, batons and other tools of defense are only tools. It is the right to self-defense that has been under attack all this time.

Section 265 of the Criminal Code in Suffolk County, New York, in which the town of Medford is located, contains a lengthy list of what are described as “dangerous weapons” that cannot be purchased or owned by honest citizens. New York State requires that the first act of self-defense is to retreat. The legal environment makes it difficult, if not impossible, to purchase a weapon, train to use it properly or have it available and use it for self-defense without first exhausting a checklist of what must be done so that the victim does not end up criminally charged. This is an impossible situation when under attack. Again, imagine yourself in that pharmacy.

There are now 31 states that have adopted the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground legislation or both. The Castle Doctrine declares that one may protect himself, his family or those entrusted to his guardianship if their premises is unlawfully entered and its occupants threatened. Stand Your Ground legislation goes one step further in that it removes the Duty of Retreat, which says that you must vacate the premises to the attacker if you can. Stand Your Ground legislation also removes the requirement that the person under attack has to announce his intention to use deadly force against his attacker.

These are good legislative changes that promote self-defense, but the right to self-defense should not be impaired by government in any way. Robbers and attackers bent on assault would think twice before approaching a home, place of business or a person if they thought that their potential victims would be armed. Recent FBI statistics show that while gun sales were surging from 2008 through 2009, the rate of violent crime fell dramatically. Think about it. Have you ever heard of a gunman shooting up a gun show? An attacker would hesitate even further, if he thought his victim would not only be armed but would also be free of any restrictions to defend himself.

Criminals are looking for an advantage over their victims. Their advantage comes from being armed when they know their victims are not. They also gain advantage in states where an armed victim may hesitate to defend himself because of how the law requires his self-defense to be played out.

Gun control legislation and other laws restricting the purchase and possession of a weapon of any kind are supposed to prevent those weapons from getting into the hands of criminals. Unfortunately, all these laws are doing is making honest citizens vulnerable to those who have no intention of following any law. Is there more here than just good intentions leading to unintended consequences? Does our government intentionally want us to be completely dependent on it for our basic right to life rather than our ability to defend ourselves? When we hear how the Syrian government is killing its unarmed citizens who dare to speak out against it, we should be concerned by any law that makes us more vulnerable by restricting our right to self-defense.

Rather than arguing the intent of the Second Amendment, the debate is far better framed by focusing on how a citizen’s unalienable right to life and a citizen’s unrestricted right to self-defense are connected. Without the right to self-defense, our guarantee of the right to life is meaningless.

Robert Allen Bonelli is the author of “Liberty Rising,” an accomplished business executive, public speaker and involved citizen.

Oh sweetheart, you don't know ****. "Being in fear of one's life" is tricky **** in Florida. You might get away from criminal charges, but most likely you'll have a civil claim in your hands and thanks to the "411 pain" mentality of these ***** you may end up having to spare some dough for a doing the right thing.

You need a (better) Castle Doctrine. MS law prevents someone from being liable for civil claims if they are cleared in criminal court (or if criminal charges are never brought). I have the right to protect my homestead against intruders if I feel threatened, regardless of whether they are armed or not, and my homestead extends to my personal vehicles whether said vehicles are on my property or not.

The most borderline case recently involved a store owner chasing an unarmed beer thief out into the parking lot. Thief jumped into his truck, and reached below the door window. Store owner decided he didn't want to find out what the guy was reaching for and shot him dead. Cops found no weapons on the guy or in the car. Store owner was cleared in court of wrongdoing.